Chris xx Route 66's blog: "WHO'S IN CHARGE????"

Advice and dissent: Obama reaches out to ex-rivals By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer Sat Nov 15, 5:50 pm ET WASHINGTON – Presidents typically say they want to be surrounded by strong-willed people who have the courage to disagree with them. President-elect Barack Obama, reaching out to Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republicans, actually might mean it. Abraham Lincoln meant it. He appointed his bitter adversaries to crucial posts, choosing as war secretary a man who had called him a "long-armed ape" who "does not know anything and can do you no good." You could say his Cabinet meetings were frank and open. Richard Nixon didn't mean it. "I don't want a government of yes-men," he declared. But among all the president's men, those who said no did so at their peril. He went down a path of destruction in the company of sycophants. It so happens that Obama and New York Sen. Clinton share a reverence for "Team of Rivals," Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about how Lincoln brought foes into his fold. Clinton listed it during the campaign as the last book she had read. Obama, clearly a student of Lincoln, spoke of it several times. Now past could be prologue. Obama is considering Clinton for secretary of state or another senior position, meeting John McCain on Monday to see how his Republican presidential rival might help him in the Senate, and sizing up one-time opponents in both parties for potential recruitment. He made one Democratic presidential opponent, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, his running mate. "I think it reflects a great inner strength on Obama's part that he is seriously considering creating a team of rivals as Lincoln did," Goodwin told The Associated Press on Friday. "By surrounding himself with people who bring different perspectives, he will increase his options, absorb dissenting views and heighten his ability to speak empathetically to people on different sides of each issue. The challenge, of course, is to ensure that the discussions do not become paralyzing, and that once a decision is made the inner circle accepts that the time for debate is over," she said. During the bitter primary campaign, Clinton dismissed Obama as a neophyte who could not be trusted to handle crises and who had not done much more in politics than make fancy speeches. Obama sniffed that "you're likable enough, Hillary." Yet she strongly supported Obama in the general campaign, not unlike William Henry Seward, the Hillary Clinton of his day. Seward, the front-runner in the race for the 1860 Republican nomination, was so confident of taking the prize that he went on an eight-month tour of Europe a year earlier, only to see Lincoln vanquish him. Lincoln buried animosities and made him secretary of state. Lincoln also enlisted Democrat Edwin Stanton as his second war secretary, despite being humiliated by Stanton years earlier when they worked together as trial lawyers. Salmon P. Chase, a constant critic of Lincoln and another Republican rival, became his treasury secretary. Other rivals were put in the Cabinet, too. Lincoln's reasoning: "We needed the strongest men. These were the very strongest men. I had no right to deprive the country of their services." None of this has been lost on Obama, who said in May that Lincoln's inclusion of former foes "has to be the approach that one takes." At the time, he said he would consider McCain for the Cabinet if that made sense. Now, aides for both men say such a move is not in the works but they will seek other ways to cooperate. To be sure, the pledge to build a strong and politically diverse Cabinet of people who will not be cowed by the president and his aides is made in one election after another. It usually has all the staying power of a New Year's resolution. Michael Nelson, in his "Guide to the Presidency," noted that Jimmy Carter promised: "There will never be an instance while I am in office where the members of the White House staff dominate or act in a superior position to the members of the Cabinet." That didn't last long. Carter met weekly with his Cabinet in his first year, every two weeks in his second, monthly in his third and only sporadically in his fourth, Nelson calculated, tracing a typical pattern of good intentions lost in the wind. Walter Hickel, Nixon's interior secretary, thought the president valued his contrary views "because, to me, an adversary in an organization is a valuable asset." Not to Nixon. Hickel came to realize Nixon "considered an adversary an enemy." The two particularly disagreed over the Alaskan pipeline — the secretary wanted to protect wilderness lands coveted by the oil companies. During one testy meeting, he asked Nixon whether he should leave his administration. "He jumped from his chair, very hurried and agitated," Hickel recalled. "He said, 'That's one option we hadn't considered.'" A week later, Hickel was fired. Goodwin says a true team of rivals is exceptionally difficult to make work in these days of hyperpartisanship, scandal-hungry blogs and raw feelings between parties and factions of the same party from the often nasty campaign. Disharmony in Lincoln's Cabinet was largely kept inside the meetings, exposed years later in memoirs, and that's not how the world works anymore. Still, she said the even-keeled Obama displayed a temperament in the campaign that could help him pull it off. "And I believe the country would respond with great enthusiasm, recognizing the great contrast to recent times." Obama invited dissent in his election night victory speech, promising, "I will listen to you, especially when we disagree." It remains to be seen whether he wants naysaying of the kind delivered by Stanton, who served as Democrat James Buchanan's attorney general in one of the few instances in history when a Cabinet member from one party has gone on to serve a president of the other party in the succeeding administration. "You are sleeping on a volcano," he warned Buchanan in the lead-up to the Civil War. Without prompt action, "you will be the last president of the United States." He was no yes-man.

THE INFLUENCE GAME: Lobbyists adapt to power shift By SHARON THEIMER and PETE YOST Sharon Theimer And Pete Yost 2 hrs 9 mins ago WASHINGTON – Wanted: Democratic congressional aide seeking new career. Must have strong powers of persuasion, excellent connections and good marksmanship. Contact the National Rifle Association's government affairs office for details. It's clear times have changed in Washington when the nation's biggest gun-rights lobby — long considered Republican-leaning — points out the Democrats on its team and only half-jokingly talks about hiring more. "We're always looking for good ones," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said when asked if he's seeing Democratic staffers leaving Capitol Hill to fill a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. "If they do, give us a call." The Democrats' election sweep — they gained the White House and increased their majorities in the House and Senate — is shaking up the capital's $3 billion-a-year lobbying industry. After eight years of a Republican administration and shifting power in Congress, Washington's 16,000 registered lobbyists must now work to capitalize on, or cope with, one-party control. "We look at any new administration as a time of opportunity in the lobbying community, and certainly here," said Gregg Hartley, vice chairman and CEO of the bipartisan lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates. He said he would love to see an influx of applications from Democratic aides. "We have shopped to add very high quality, strong individuals, but they are enjoying being in the new majority." Jim Albertine, a longtime Washington lobbyist and former president of the American League of Lobbyists, said there's no question that lobbying firms will load up with Democrats, if they haven't already. "Having said that, however, with the new lobby rules, no matter if you come from D or R, you're still going to be restricted in what you're doing in the first year," Albertine said. That could give established lobbyists an edge over newcomers from Capitol Hill: As the new administration moves on its agenda, "if you have a new hire, you're not going to be able to use that person in the way you want to," he said. Many lobbyists began positioning themselves before the election. President-elect Barack Obama's stated antipathy toward lobbyists may keep many of them from winning high-profile posts in his administration, but it hasn't kept them from promoting their policy positions to Obama's team. The American Farm Bureau Federation, like most major trade groups, tries to keep a bipartisan balance. It has staff members who worked and volunteered in the campaigns of Obama and his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain. The federation and its state farm bureaus already are talking to Obama's transition team about its priorities, including energy production, trade and how government carries out the new farm bill, chief lobbyist Mark Maslyn said. "It starts long before this moment. And many of the people we have known for years and years," Maslyn said. "Because we regularly work with both sides of the aisle, we work with lawmakers who want to see those positions advance as well: members of the Democratic caucus as well as the Republican caucus. As I tell a lot of people, this is a relational business." Likewise, the Edison Electric Institute, a lobbying group for electric utilities, talked with both campaigns and already has been in touch with Obama's transition team. Issues it is trying to get on the Obama team's radar include the need for more power lines. The Obama agenda of change may apply to lobbying tactics as well. "Lobbying a Democratic government is different because in most instances it's predisposed to be skeptical of what business interests are advocating," said Mark Irion, CEO of Dutko Worldwide. "It's not enough to say Corporate Titan Inc. supports something." With Democrats, it helps to show grassroots support from coalitions of people, he said. Offering a glimpse of how the Edison Electric Institute may promote one of its top priorities, spokesman Jim Owen said the group sees renewable energy as a way to create the kind of "green jobs" Obama championed during the campaign. To use the renewable energy that utilities generate, transmission lines are needed to connect it to the power grid, he said. Though seldom willing to name names, lobbyists are weighing in on potential Obama appointees, in some cases describing the kinds of people they would like to see in key jobs or going so far as offering to help recruit and vet candidates. Key posts for the Farm Bureau include the agriculture and energy secretaries, Environmental Protection Agency administrator, U.S. trade representative and second- and third-tier appointments, the "sub-Cabinet" positions such as deputy secretaries and deputy administrators, assistant administrators and undersecretaries that tend to be the point people and experts on specific industry issues. Top lobbying goals for the American Association for Justice, formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, include asking the Obama administration to undo any rules the outgoing Bush administration adopts to try to limit lawsuits. It wants Congress and Obama to outlaw mandatory binding arbitration in consumer contracts and reverse a Supreme Court decision making it harder for consumers to sue the makers of FDA-regulated medical devices. The American Medical Association's Washington office communicated with both presidential campaigns and now is talking to Obama's transition team about key issues such as Medicare reimbursement, preventive health care and the uninsured, said its incoming president, Dr. Jim Rohack, a physician in Temple, Texas. Though Democrats control Congress, AMA lobbyists won't ignore Republicans, Rohack said, noting that Senate Democrats lack a filibuster-proof 60 votes. The Financial Services Roundtable plans to do the same. Some lobbyists are now seeing people they worked with in government years ago back in positions of power. Dan Glickman, chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, was agriculture secretary under President Bill Clinton, whose administration is being tapped by Obama for expertise as he prepares to take office. Others are not so well-positioned with Obama's team, and are making their views known through other channels. The NRA, which endorsed McCain, is lobbying sympathetic congressional Democrats to try to head off any move toward new gun controls. When it comes to lobbying Obama's transition team, "we're talking to whoever we know who talks to them," LaPierre said. The current climate will make it difficult for new Republican lobbyists, but could prove lucrative for those who represent business. Wright Andrews, a former Democratic congressional aide who lobbies on banking issues, said the power shift will require Republican lobbyists to hunker down, working at the margins of legislation to make modest changes and forming coalitions between GOP lawmakers and conservative Democrats to play a more defensive game. "We are looking at more government regulation," Andrews said. "I would certainly expect that after many people see the new administration's agendas and proposals, they will come clamoring to K Street, saying, 'Save us.' You will see business interests socked like they haven't been in a long time."

The New Liberal Order The New Liberal Order * Buzz Up * Send o Email o IM * Share o Digg o Facebook o Newsvine o del.icio.us o Reddit o StumbleUpon o Technorati o Yahoo! Bookmarks * Print By PETER BEINART Peter Beinart – 53 mins ago Supporters cheer as they gather in Grant Park for the election night party for AP – Supporters cheer as they gather in Grant Park for the election night party for Democratic presidential … The death and rebirth of American liberalism both began with flags in Grant Park. On Aug. 28, 1968, 10,000 people gathered there to protest the Democratic Convention taking place a few blocks away, which was about to nominate Lyndon Johnson's Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, thus implicitly ratifying the hated Vietnam War. Chicago mayor Richard Daley had warned the protesters not to disrupt his city and denied them permits to assemble, but they came anyway. All afternoon, the protesters chanted and the police hovered, until about 3:30, when someone climbed a flagpole and began lowering the American flag. Police went to arrest the offender and were pelted with eggs, chunks of concrete and balloons filled with paint and urine. The police responded by charging into the crowd, clubbing bystanders and yelling "Kill! Kill!" in what one report later termed a "police riot." Across the country, Americans watching on television gave their verdict: Serves the damn hippies right. Democrats, who had won seven of the previous nine presidential elections, went on to lose seven of the next 10. Forty years later, happy liberals mobbed Grant Park, invited by another mayor named Richard Daley, to celebrate Barack Obama's election. This time the flags flew proudly at full mast, and the police were there to protect the crowd, not threaten it. Once again, Americans watched on television, and this time they didn't seethe. They wept. (See pictures of Obama's Grant Park celebrations.) The distance between those two Grant Park scenes says a lot about how American liberalism fell, and why in the Obama era it could become - once again - America's ruling creed. The coalition that carried Obama to victory is every bit as sturdy as America's last two dominant political coalitions: the ones that elected Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. And the Obama majority is sturdy for one overriding reason: liberalism, which average Americans once associated with upheaval, now promises stability instead. The Search for Order In America, political majorities live or die at the intersection of two public yearnings: for freedom and for order. A century ago, in the Progressive Era, modern American liberalism was born, in historian Robert Wiebe's words, as a "search for order." America's giant industrial monopolies, the progressives believed, were turning capitalism into a jungle, a wild and lawless place where only the strong and savage survived. By the time Roosevelt took office during the Great Depression, the entire ecosystem appeared to be in a death spiral, with Americans crying out for government to take control. F.D.R. did - juicing the economy with unprecedented amounts of government cash, creating new protections for the unemployed and the elderly, and imposing rules for how industry was to behave. Conservatives wailed that economic freedom was under assault, but most ordinary Americans thanked God that Washington was securing their bank deposits, helping labor unions boost their wages, giving them a pension when they retired and pumping money into the economy to make sure it never fell into depression again. They didn't feel unfree; they felt secure. For three and a half decades, from the mid-1930s through the '60s, government imposed order on the market. The jungle of American capitalism became a well-tended garden, a safe and pleasant place for ordinary folks to stroll. Americans responded by voting for F.D.R.-style liberalism - which even most Republican politicians came to accept - in election after election. (Read a TIME cover story on F.D.R.) By the beginning of the 1960s, though, liberalism was becoming a victim of its own success. The post-World War II economic boom flooded America's colleges with the children of a rising middle class, and it was those children, who had never experienced life on an economic knife-edge, who began to question the status quo, the tidy, orderly society F.D.R. had built. For blacks in the South, they noted, order meant racial apartheid. For many women, it meant confinement to the home. For everyone, it meant stifling conformity, a society suffocated by rules about how people should dress, pray, imbibe and love. In 1962, Students for a Democratic Society spoke for what would become a new, baby-boom generation "bred in at least modest comfort," which wanted less order and more freedom. And it was this movement for racial, sexual and cultural liberation that bled into the movement against Vietnam and assembled in August 1968 in Grant Park. Traditional liberalism died there because Americans - who had once associated it with order - came to associate it with disorder instead. For a vast swath of the white working class, racial freedom came to mean riots and crime; sexual freedom came to mean divorce; and cultural freedom came to mean disrespect for family, church and flag. Richard Nixon and later Reagan won the presidency by promising a new order: not economic but cultural, not the taming of the market but the taming of the street. See scenes from voting day. See the campaign in T Shirts. The Receding Right Flash forward to the evening of Nov. 4, and you can see why liberalism has sprung back to life. Ideologically, the crowds who assembled to hear Obama on election night were linear descendants of those egg throwers four decades before. They too believe in racial equality, gay rights, feminism, civil liberties and people's right to follow their own star. But 40 years later, those ideas no longer seem disorderly. Crime is down and riots nonexistent; feminism is so mainstream that even Sarah Palin embraces the term; Chicago mayor Richard Daley, son of the man who told police to bash heads, marches in gay-rights parades. Culturally, liberalism isn't that scary anymore. Younger Americans - who voted overwhelmingly for Obama - largely embrace the legacy of the '60s, and yet they constitute one of the most obedient, least rebellious generations in memory. The culture war is ending because cultural freedom and cultural order - the two forces that faced off in Chicago in 1968 - have turned out to be reconcilable after all. The disorder that panics Americans now is not cultural but economic. If liberalism collapsed in the 1960s because its bid for cultural freedom became associated with cultural disorder, conservatism has collapsed today because its bid for economic freedom has become associated with economic disorder. When Reagan took power in 1981, he vowed to restore the economic liberty that a half-century of F.D.R.-style government intrusion had stifled. American capitalism had become so thoroughly domesticated, he argued, that it lost its capacity for dynamic growth. For a time, a majority of Americans agreed. Taxes and regulations were cut and cut again, and for the most part, the economic pie grew. In the 1980s and '90s, the garden of American capitalism became a pretty energetic place. But it became a scarier place too. In the newly deregulated American economy, fewer people had job security or fixed-benefit pensions or reliable health care. Some got rich, but a lot went bankrupt, mostly because of health-care costs. As Yale University political scientist Jacob Hacker has noted, Americans today experience far-more-violent swings in household income than did their parents a generation ago. (See pictures of the 1958 recession.) Starting in the 1990s, average Americans began deciding that the conservative economic agenda was a bit like the liberal cultural agenda of the 1960s: less liberating than frightening. When the Gingrich Republicans tried to slash Medicare, the public turned on them en masse. A decade later, when George W. Bush tried to partially privatize Social Security, Americans rebelled once again. In 2005 a Pew Research Center survey identified a new group of voters that it called "pro-government conservatives." They were culturally conservative and hawkish on foreign policy, and they overwhelmingly supported Bush in 2004. But by large majorities, they endorsed government regulation and government spending. They didn't want to unleash the free market; they wanted to rein it in. Those voters were a time bomb in the Republican coalition, which detonated on Nov. 4. John McCain's promises to cut taxes, cut spending and get government out of the way left them cold. Among the almost half of voters who said they were "very worried" that the economic crisis would hurt their family, Obama beat McCain by 26 points. (See pictures of Obama's campaign.) The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order - to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas - and they don't much care whose heads Washington has to bash to do it. Seizing the Moment That is both Obama's great challenge and his great opportunity. If he can do what F.D.R. did - make American capitalism stabler and less savage - he will establish a Democratic majority that dominates U.S. politics for a generation. And despite the daunting problems he inherits, he's got an excellent chance. For one thing, taking aggressive action to stimulate the economy, regulate the financial industry and shore up the American welfare state won't divide his political coalition; it will divide the other side. On domestic economics, Democrats up and down the class ladder mostly agree. Even among Democratic Party economists, the divide that existed during the Clinton years between deficit hawks like Robert Rubin and free spenders like Robert Reich has largely evaporated, as everyone has embraced a bigger government role. Today it's Republicans who - though more unified on cultural issues - are split badly between upscale business types who want government out of the way and pro-government conservatives who want Washington's help. If Obama moves forcefully to restore economic order, the Wall Street Journal will squawk about creeping socialism, as it did in F.D.R.'s day, but many downscale Republicans will cheer. It's these working-class Reagan Democrats who could become tomorrow's Obama Republicans - a key component of a new liberal majority - if he alleviates their economic fears. See pictures of former Presidents Clinton and Bush. Obama doesn't have to turn the economy around overnight. After all, Roosevelt hadn't ended the Depression by 1936. Obama just needs modest economic improvement by the time he starts running for re-election and an image as someone relentlessly focused on fixing America's economic woes. In allocating his time in his first months as President, he should remember what voters told exit pollsters they cared about most - 63% said the economy. (No other issue even exceeded 10%.) In politics, crisis often brings opportunity. If Obama restores some measure of economic order, kick-starting U.S. capitalism and softening its hard edges, and if he develops the kind of personal rapport with ordinary Americans that F.D.R. and Reagan had - and he has the communication skills to do it - liberals will probably hold sway in Washington until Sasha and Malia have kids. As that happens, the arguments that have framed economic debate in recent times - for large upper-income tax cuts or the partial privatization of Social Security and Medicare - will fade into irrelevance. In an era of liberal hegemony, they will seem as archaic as defending the welfare system became when conservatives were on top. See pictures of the world reacting to Obama's win. See pictures of presidential First Dogs. A New Consensus There are fault lines in the Obama coalition, to be sure. In a two-party system, it's impossible to construct a majority without bringing together people who disagree on big things. But Obama's majority is at least as cohesive as Reagan's or F.D.R.'s. The cultural issues that have long divided Democrats - gay marriage, gun control, abortion - are receding in importance as a post-'60s generation grows to adulthood. Foreign policy doesn't divide Democrats as bitterly as it used to either because, in the wake of Iraq, once-hawkish working-class whites have grown more skeptical of military force. In 2004, 22% of voters told exit pollsters that "moral values" were their top priority, and 19% said terrorism. This year terrorism got 9%, and no social issues even made the list. The biggest potential land mine in the Obama coalition isn't the culture war or foreign policy; it's nationalism. On a range of issues, from global warming to immigration to trade to torture, college-educated liberals want to integrate more deeply America's economy, society and values with the rest of the world's. They want to make it easier for people and goods to legally cross America's borders, and they want global rules that govern how much America can pollute the atmosphere and how it conducts the war on terrorism. They believe that ceding some sovereignty is essential to making America prosperous, decent and safe. When it comes to free trade, immigration and multilateralism, though, downscale Democrats are more skeptical. In the future, the old struggle between freedom and order may play itself out on a global scale, as liberal internationalists try to establish new rules for a more interconnected planet and working-class nationalists protest that foreign bureaucrats threaten America's freedom. But that's in the future. If Obama begins restoring order to the economy, Democrats will reap the rewards for a long time. Forty years ago, liberalism looked like the problem in a nation spinning out of control. Today a new version of it may be the solution. It's a very different day in Grant Park. Beinart is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations See pictures of the Civil Rights' Ground Zero. See pictures of Obama backstage. View this article on Time.com Related articles on Time.com: * Celebrating Obama's Historic Victory in Chicago

Palin blames Bush policies for GOP defeat By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Gene Johnson, Associated Press Writer 28 mins ago WASILLA, Alaska – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, amid speculation she'll run for president in four years, blamed Bush administration policies for the defeat last week of the GOP ticket and prayed she wouldn't miss "an open door" for her next political opportunity. "I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door," Palin said in an interview with Fox News on Monday. "And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door." In a wide-ranging interview with Fox's Greta Van Susteren, Palin says she neither wanted nor asked for the $150,000-plus wardrobe the Republican Party bankrolled, and thought the issue was an odd one at the end of the campaign, considering "what is going on in the world today." "I did not order the clothes. Did not ask for the clothes," Palin said. "I would have been happy to have worn my own clothes from Day One. But that is kind of an odd issue, an odd campaign issue as things were wrapping up there as to who ordered what and who demanded what." "It's amazing that we did as well as we did," Palin, who was Sen. John McCain's running mate, said of the election in a separate interview with the Anchorage Daily News. "I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a $10 trillion debt in a Republican administration? How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration? If we're talking change, we want to get far away from what it was that the present administration represented and that is to a great degree what the Republican Party at the time had been representing," Palin said in a story published Sunday. Palin has scheduled a series of national interviews this week with Fox, NBC's "Today" show and CNN. She also plans to attend the Republican Governors Association conference in Florida this week. Palin has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012. She also could seek re-election in 2010 or challenge Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Still uncertain is the fate of Sen. Ted Stevens, who is leading in his bid for another term but could be ousted by the Senate for his conviction on seven felony counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts, mostly renovations on his home. If Stevens loses his seat, Palin could run for it in a special election. Palin and McCain's campaign faced a storm of criticism over the tens of thousands of dollars spent at such high-end stores as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus to dress the nominee. Republican National Committee lawyers are still trying to determine exactly what clothing was bought for Palin, what was returned and what has become of the rest. Her father, Chuck Heath, said Palin spent part of the weekend going through her clothing to determine what belongs to the Republican Party. "She was just frantically ... trying to sort stuff out," Heath said. "That's the problem, you know, the kids lose underwear, and everything has to be accounted for. Nothing goes right back to normal," Palin's father said his daughter told him the only clothing or accessories she personally had purchased in the past four months was a pair of shoes. RNC lawyers have been discussing with Palin whether what's left of the clothing and accessories purchased for her on the campaign trail will go to charity, back to stores or be paid for by Palin, a McCain-Palin campaign official said Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity because the campaign hadn't authorized comment. The McCain-Palin campaign said about a third of the clothing was returned immediately because it was the wrong size, or for other reasons. However, other purchases apparently were made after that, the campaign official said. In Wasilla, her hometown backers welcomed her, putting aside their disappointment over her unsuccessful bid. Jessica Steele can't wait to see what Sarah Palin does next — not with her political career, but with her hair. "That's something I want to talk to her about: What's our vision for her hair?" says Steele, proprietor of the Beehive Beauty Shop and keeper of the governor's up-do since 2002. "I can't wait to see her and say, 'OK, I've got you alone for three hours. Just relax, and how are you, really?'" While Palin remains popular, the reality of defeat is evident. Bags of fan mail, as many as 400 letters a day, partially fill a room at her parent's house. But parents no longer meet Secret Service agents when they pick up their children at Cottonwood Creek Elementary, where Palin's youngest daughter, Piper, is a student. The reporters and camera crews are gone from the Palin home on Lake Lucille, once patrolled by Coast Guard boats. Now a thick sheet of ice covers the lake. Four state troopers still guard the governor 24 hours a day, Heath said — something Palin never had before. And in a bit of familiarity, Heath said he brought a pot of moose chili to Palin's house this past weekend.

Vanishing jobs, stressed consumers feed downturn Friday November 7, 12:03 am ET By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer Vanishing jobs, stressed consumers feed vicious cycle for sinking economy WASHINGTON (AP) -- A vicious cycle of vanishing jobs and stresses on American consumers is spelling deeper trouble for the already sinking U.S. economy. All the economy's woes -- a housing collapse, mounting foreclosures, hard-to-get credit and financial market upheaval -- will confront President-elect Obama when he assumes office early next year. Obama has shifted from campaign mode to the task of building a new Democratic administration. A top priority will be quickly assembling his economics team, including the secretaries of Treasury, Commerce and Labor. On the crucial jobs front, the situation is likely to move from bad to worse next year. Employers have slashed jobs in the first nine months of this year. A staggering 760,000 losses have been racked up so far. And more are expected. The government's monthly jobs report is due out Friday, and net job losses for October are expected to total about 200,000. The unemployment rate, now 6.1 percent, is expected to rise to 6.3 percent. If it does, it would match the highest unemployment rate that was logged after the last recession, in 2001. The jobless rate hit 6.3 percent in June 2003 and then started to drift downward. Many expect the jobless rate to climb to 8 percent, possibly higher, next year. In the 1980-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose as high as 10.8 percent before inching down. Stressed consumers are cutting back on their shopping and trying to trim their debt. Economists believe consumers cut back on borrowing in September, as another report to be released Friday is expected to show. Nearly half a million Americans filed new claims for unemployment benefits in the last week alone, and skittish shoppers handed many retailers their weakest sales since 1969, government reports out Thursday showed. The Labor Department said new filings for jobless benefits clocked in at 481,000, a dip from the previous week but a still-elevated level that suggests companies are resorting to big layoffs to cope with the economy's downturn. Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., Circuit City Stores Inc., drug maker GlaxoSmithKline PLC, chip maker Advanced Micro Devices Inc., auto parts maker Dana Holding Corp., cable operators Comcast Corp. and Cox Communications Inc. and Fidelity Investments are among the companies that recently have announced layoffs. To provide fresh relief, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats, in a lame-duck session later this month, would push to enact another round of economic stimulus to provide more relief, which could include extending jobless benefits. A $168 billion package, including tax rebates for people and tax breaks for businesses, was rolled out earlier this year. Short of a package of $100 billion or more, the House could press the Senate to pass a smaller $61 billion measure that would bankroll public works projects to help generate new jobs and would extend unemployment benefits. Companies are begging for help, too. The leaders of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler and the president of the United Auto Workers union came to Capitol Hill to discuss billions of dollars more in financial help. Reeling from layoffs and watching their wealth shrink as home values and nest eggs have been clobbered, shoppers turned extra frugal last month and sent sales at many retailers down sharply. Michael P. Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers, summed up the situation as "awful." According to the ICSC-Goldman Sachs index, sales fell 1 percent, the weakest October performance since at least 1969 when the index began. Target Corp. and Costco were among the many retailers reporting sales declines last month. Even teens stayed away from malls. American Eagle Outfitters Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Co. reported drops in sales. But Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, logged a sales gain as shoppers hunted for bargains. The Federal Reserve ratcheted down interest rates last week to 1 percent and left the door open to further reductions in a bid to prevent a drawn out recession in the United States. The country's economic state has rapidly deteriorated in just a few months. The economy contracted at a 0.3 percent pace in the July-September quarter, signaling the onset of a likely recession. It was the worst showing since 2001 recession, and reflected a massive pullback by consumers. As U.S. consumers watch jobs disappear, they'll probably retrench even further. That's why analysts predict the economy is still shrinking in the current October-December quarter and will contract further in the first quarter of next year. All that more than fulfills a classic definition of a recession: two straight quarters of contracting economic activity.